Parallel Lines International Pty Limited v Video-Drama Pty Limited [2007] NSWADT 84

Parallel Lines International Pty Limited v Video-Drama Pty Limited [2007] NSWADT 84

The lessor's repossession of the premises and seizure of goods was not authorised by the lease, because the requisite period of default (14 days) had not elapsed; there was no repudiation by the lessee; the lockout was therefore in breach of the lease and the lessee is entitled to damages for goods seized and return of security deposit, but has not proven loss of future business profits. The respondent is entitled to damages for unpaid rent as at the date of the lockout.

Parties
Applicant/cross Respondent: Parallel Lines International Pty Limited; Respondent/cross Applicant: Video-Drama Pty Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 April 2007
Procedural Posture
Retail Tenancy Dispute/lease Dispute / Tribunal Decision After Hearings and Written Submissions
Outcome
Liability for damages established, quantum to be assessed. Both parties awarded damages under specific heads.
Legal Topics
Retail Leases, Termination of Lease, Breach of Contract, Damages, Conversion, Unconscionable Conduct
Commercial Law Property Law Retail Leases Termination of Lease Breach of Contract Damages Conversion Unconscionable Conduct

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Parallel Lines International Pty Limited

Applicant/cross Respondent

Video-Drama Pty Limited

Respondent/cross Applicant

Procedural Posture

Retail Tenancy Dispute/lease Dispute / Tribunal Decision After Hearings and Written Submissions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the lessor lawfully terminated the lease and repossessed the premises for non-payment of rent
  2. 2 Whether the lessee is entitled to damages for loss of business and/or for the value of seized goods
  3. 3 Whether the lessor's conduct amounted to unconscionable conduct under s 62B Retail Leases Act 1994

Ratio Decidendi

The lessor's repossession of the premises and seizure of goods was not authorised by the lease, because the requisite period of default (14 days) had not elapsed; there was no repudiation by the lessee; the lockout was therefore in breach of the lease and the lessee is entitled to damages for goods seized and return of security deposit, but has not proven loss of future business profits. The respondent is entitled to damages for unpaid rent as at the date of the lockout.

Court Disposition

Liability for damages established, quantum to be assessed. Both parties awarded damages under specific heads.

Orders

  • The Applicant is entitled to damages, to be assessed, for (a) value of goods seized on 5 October 2002 and (b) the amount of the security deposit.
  • The Respondent is entitled to damages representing the rent due and unpaid under the lease as at 5 October 2002.